You are using an older browser version. Please use a supported version for the best MSN experience.

Another Discovery From a Falling Apple

The Huffington Post The Huffington Post 10/03/2016 Justin Curmi
PEARS GROWING © Frédéric Collin via Getty Images PEARS GROWING

The recent Apple v. FBI court case has showcased the misuse and abuse of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This lack of the legal argument clarifies and demonstrates the boundaries and the specific criterion of this amendment. As an end result, it will be demonstrated that the Apple v. FBI case is a matter of the Fourth Amendment.
It is of the utterer most importance to have the First Amendment present, so it follows as: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The main part of this is the first bit, "Congress shall make no law," which gives the criterion of this amendment. This being congress cannot create a law that: respects a religious institution, blocking one from practicing a religion, minimizing the right to express opinions, minimizing the press from reporting, or minimizing the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Then if the people have issues, the government can be petitioned by the people to address those grievances they have with something. This is a law of the limits on a bill and a power to the people, for the people have the right to petition the government to address a thing that in not peaceable or harmful to society. It is not some battle cry to use when someone wants to breach the privacy of an individual. This amendment should raise questions: such as, "Is there influence of religion in government? When does free religious exercise interferes with another's rights? Is ignorance freedom of speech? Is ignorance freedom of press? When is assembling considered violent?" After, if anyone has a concern about one of the answers of a question, they should petition the government to review the grievance. This was in hopes that the government can take a nonpartisan stance about a grievance. This can be demonstrated in a part of George Washington's Farewell address: "All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."
Therefore, another question emerges: "Whom does the political establishment have in mind?"
Moreover, where does this leave the Apple v. FBI case? This can be simply answered by the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It is plain to the eye that the information is in the private sphere because if the information were public, the Apple v. FBI case would not exist. It is also evident that this is relevant to effects, for smartphones only obtain information by effects. One must use it to cause a result, which produces information. Therefore, FBI has the right to enter this phone and no other phone. The collection of information without any probable cause is unconstitutional. Yes, this is a slow and painstaking process, but a steady pace is the democratic way.
I do not support either in this case due to they both horribly and haphazardly conceptualized the proper channel. Yet, if the case was properly litigated, Apple should give them access to the one phone and FBI is going to have to deal with the steady pace of democracy.

More from Huffington Post

The Huffington Post
The Huffington Post
image beaconimage beaconimage beacon